Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userRectangular Polyomino Set Weak (1,2)-achievement Games
133
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Nandor Sieben
Publication date
2010
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
In a polyomino set (1,2)-achievement game the maker and the breaker alternately mark one and two previously unmarked cells respectively. The makers goal is to mark a set of cells congruent to one of a given set of polyominoes. The breaker tries to prevent the maker from achieving his goal. The teams of polyominoes for which the maker has a winning strategy is determined up to size 4. In set achievement games, it is natural to study infinitely large polyominoes. This enables the construction of super winners that characterize all winning teams up to a certain size.
rate research
Read More
In a biased weak $(a,b)$ polyform achievement game, the maker and the breaker alternately mark $a,b$ previously unmarked cells on an infinite board, respectively. The makers goal is to mark a set of cells congruent to a polyform. The breaker tries to prevent the maker from achieving this goal. A winning maker strategy for the $(a,b)$ game can be built from winning strategies for games involving fewer marks for the maker and the breaker. A new type of breaker strategy called the priority strategy is introduced. The winners are determined for all $(a,b)$ pairs for polyiamonds and polyominoes up to size four.
We study a game where two players take turns selecting points of a convex geometry until the convex closure of the jointly selected points contains all the points of a given winning set. The winner of the game is the last player able to move. We develop a structure theory for these games and use it to determine the nim number for several classes of convex geometries, including one-dimensional affine geometries, vertex geometries of trees, and games with a winning set consisting of extreme points.
We study an impartial game introduced by Anderson and Harary. This game is played by two players who alternately choose previously-unselected elements of a finite group. The first player who builds a generating set from the jointly-selected elements wins. We determine the nim-numbers of this game for generalized dihedral groups, which are of the form $operatorname{Dih}(A)= mathbb{Z}_2 ltimes A$ for a finite abelian group $A$.
We study two impartial games introduced by Anderson and Harary and further developed by Barnes. Both games are played by two players who alternately select previously unselected elements of a finite group. The first player who builds a generating set from the jointly selected elements wins the first game. The first player who cannot select an element without building a generating set loses the second game. After the development of some general results, we determine the nim-numbers of these games for abelian and dihedral groups. We also present some conjectures based on computer calculations. Our main computational and theoretical tool is the structure diagram of a game, which is a type of identification digraph of the game digraph that is compatible with the nim-numbers of the positions. Structure diagrams also provide simple yet intuitive visualizations of these games that capture the complexity of the positions.
We study two impartial games introduced by Anderson and Harary. Both games are played by two players who alternately select previously-unselected elements of a finite group. The first player who builds a generating set from the jointly-selected elements wins the first game. The first player who cannot select an element without building a generating set loses the second game. We determine the nim-numbers, and therefore the outcomes, of these games for symmetric and alternating groups.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
